Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of New and Established Full-Field Digital Mammography Systems in Diagnostic Performance

  • Ko, Eun Sook (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Han, Boo-Kyung (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Sun Mi (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Ko, Eun Young (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jang, Mijung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Lyou, Chae Yeon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Chang, Jung Min (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Woo Kyung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Rock Bum (Department of Preventive Medicine, Dong-A University School of Medicine)
  • Published : 2013.04.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of new and established full-field digital mammography (FFDM) systems. Materials and Methods: During a 15-month period, 1038 asymptomatic women who visited for mammography were prospectively included from two institutions. For women with routine two-view mammograms from established FFDM systems, bilateral mediolateral oblique (MLO) mammograms were repeated using the new FFDM system. One of the four reviewers evaluated two-sets of bilateral MLO mammograms at 4-week intervals by using a five-point score for the probability of malignancy according to a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. The lesion type and breast density were determined by the consensus of two readers at each institution. The dichotomized mammographic results correlated with a final pathologic outcome and follow-up data. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, and specificity were compared in general and according to the lesion type and breast density. Results: Of the 1038 cases, 193 (18.6%) had cancer. The areas under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the established system were 0.815, 65.3%, and 90.2%, respectively. Those of the new system were 0.839, 68.4%, and 91.7%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the AUCs, sensitivities or the specificities in general between new and established systems (Ps = 0.194, 0.590, 0.322, respectively). We found no significant difference in these parameters according to lesion type or breast density. Conclusion: The new FFDM system has a comparable diagnostic performance with established systems.

Keywords

References

  1. Pisano, ED, Gatsonis, C, Hendrick, E, Yaffe, M, Baum, JK, Acharyya, S,Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening, N Engl J Med, 353, 1, 1773-1783(2005) https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911
  2. Karssemeijer, N, Bluekens, AM, Beijerinck, D, Deurenberg, JJ, Beekman, M, Visser, R,Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program, Radiology, 253, 2, 353-358(2009) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2532090225
  3. Vinnicombe, S, Pinto Pereira, SM, McCormack, VA, Shiel, S, Perry, N, Dos Santos Silva, IM,Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data, Radiology, 251, 3, 347-358(2009) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2512081235
  4. Skaane, P, Young, K, Skjennald, A,Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study, Radiology, 229, 4, 877-884(2003) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2293021171
  5. Skaane, P, Skjennald, A,Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study, Radiology, 232, 5, 197-204(2004) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2321031624
  6. Lazzari, B, Belli, G, Gori, C, Rosselli Del Turco, M,Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography, Med Phys, 34, 6, 2730-2743(2007) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2742498
  7. Baldelli, P, Phelan, N, Egan, G,A novel method for contrastto-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation of digital mammography detectors, Eur Radiol, 19, 7, 2275-2285(2009) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1409-3
  8. Baldelli, P, Phelan, N, Egan, G,Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector, Br J Radiol, 83, 8, 290-295(2010) https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/60404532
  9. Hendrick, RE, Pisano, ED, Averbukh, A, Moran, C, Berns, EA, Yaffe, MJ,Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 194, 9, 362-369(2010) https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.2114
  10. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs. Annual Report of cancer incidence (2007), cancer prevalence (2007) and survival (1993-2007) in Korea. Seoul: Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs, 2009.
  11. del Carmen, MG, Halpern, EF, Kopans, DB, Moy, B, Moore, RH, Goss, PE,Mammographic breast density and race, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 188, 11, 1147-1150(2007) https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0619
  12. Flahault, A, Cadilhac, M, Thomas, G,Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies, J Clin Epidemiol, 58, 12, 859-862(2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.009
  13. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), ultrasound, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
  14. Landis, JR, Koch, GG,The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics, 33, 14, 159-174(1977) https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  15. Nystrom, L, Rutqvist, LE, Wall, S, Lindgren, A, Lindqvist, M, Ryden, S,Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials, Lancet, 341, 15, 973-978(1993) https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)91067-V
  16. Tabar, L, Fagerberg, G, Duffy, SW, Day, NE, Gad, A, Grontoft, O,Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer, Radiol Clin North Am, 30, 16, 187-210(1992)
  17. Kim, HS, Han, BK, Choo, KS, Jeon, YH, Kim, JH, Choe, YH,Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications, Korean J Radiol, 6, 17, 214-220(2005) https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2005.6.4.214
  18. Bird, RE,Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases, Radiology, 171, 18, 87-90(1989) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.171.1.2494683
  19. Mandelson, MT, Oestreicher, N, Porter, PL, White, D, Finder, CA, Taplin, SH,Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers, J Natl Cancer Inst, 92, 19, 1081-1087(2000) https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081
  20. Lewin, JM, D'Orsi, CJ, Hendrick, RE, Moss, LJ, Isaacs, PK, Karellas, A,Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 179, 20, 671-677(2002) https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.3.1790671
  21. Lewin, JM, D'Orsi, CJ, Hendrick, RE,Digital mammography, Radiol Clin North Am, 42, 21, 871-884(2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.004

Cited by

  1. A New Full-Field Digital Mammography System with and without the Use of an Advanced Post-Processing Algorithm: Comparison of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance vol.15, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.3.305
  2. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  3. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888